Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Jim Smith ([info]jim_smith) wrote in [info]fandom_wank,
@ 2008-02-20 23:24:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:comics

These kids today with their 15-cent comics and their year zeroes...
Some introduction may be necessary, so...Marvel Comics publishes a line of swank hardcovers reprinting classic series in chronological order, known as Marvel Masterworks. The Marvel Masterworks Message Board, then, is a forum for discussing these books, and anxiously speculating as to which ones will come out next. Typical discussions go like "Should Marvel begin reprinting The New Mutants before or after Ziggy Pig and Silly Seal?

After some 25 years, the Masterworks line is getting pretty close to reprinting every Marvel superhero comic from the 1960s, which prompts Bilbo to proclaim that the Silver Age is nearly complete. But when exactly does the Silver Age of Comics end, and how many more volumes will it take to get there?

Lockjaw: Depending on where you say the silver age ends (1969, 1970, when Kirby leaves in mid 1970, the end of the 15 cent era or the beginng of the 20 cent era) there are from about 18 to 30 volumes.

MakeMineMarvel: I consider anything with a 12 or 15 cent cover price to be Silver age. May sound kind of dumb but my thinking is Spider-Man #100 was the end of an era.

gardibolt: Personally, I place the end of the Silver Age a lot later than most people, but the significance of the death of Gwen is just too huge to ignore it as a dividing line. Marvel Comics after were not the same as comics before.

Giant Turtle Boy:Spider-Man was certainly not the same afterward. But all Marvel Comics?

Personally, I think the Silver Age ends at a different time for each title.

droid714: To me, the end of the Silver age happened with the expansion in 1968. It wasn't long after the anthology titles went to a single character and the displaced characters were given their own mags, that the overall quality went noticeably downhill.


This goes on rather politely (if somewhat pointlessly) for a couple of pages, until ReviveTheRedRaven rushes in where angels fear to tread:


Well, for convenience's sake as well as the calendar's, the Silver Age should be considered the decade of the sixties. That is, the years including 1961-1970. In 1961 we have the birth of the Marvel Age in FF #1 and by the end of 1970 its pretty clear that the Marvel Age has lost some of its luster.

For DC, the Silver Age would start sooner and still end in 1970. In the late 50's we had Julie's books including Strange Adventures and Mystery In Space plus the fine stories/art in the war comics. This continued into the sixties and there's really no easy place to end it, so do it with the Dec. 1970 books, the last ones of the sixties.

Bronze can be 1971 -1980. Granted, there will be some overlap but the simple decade way is the easiest.


Uh-oh. This can't end well. Sure enough...



richard63: While the 20th century is 1901-2000, the 60's are by definition 1960-69, just as the 1900's are 1900-1999.

The 7th decade of the 20th century is 1961-1970.

ReviveTheRedRaven: And what is the point of defining them that way?

A decade is ten years, there was no year zero, image so the first decade ever was the years one through ten. Decades end with zeros.

The 1900's/sixties, etc. nonsense is why kids (and news anchors) can't tell time, dates, or much of anything else accurately.


You really have to go look at RRR's post, complete with every "I'm angry/frustrated!" emoticon available on the board, to get the full effect of his rage. He is BEATING HIS HEAD AGAINST A WALL with outrage!


richard63: I get annoyed when people apply that "there was no year zero" reasoning to EVERYTHING.

You can use it to say the year 2000 is part of the 20th century. That's it.

Saying the 20th century isn't the same as saying the 1900's. You can look it up in any dictionary.

ReviveTheRedRaven: Ah, but to MOST of those using the phrase it is. They think the century ends with 1999, mainly because of the influence of brain dead TV newsmen and a decline in the public schools.. Back early in the century they KNEW the century started with Jan. 1, 1901 and that decades ended with Dec. 31, whatever00.

Then we have those fools who celebrated the new millenium on Dec. 31, 1999...

Numbers are numbers. A century is a century.

Samy Merchi: Some closed minded people are stuck in obsessing that "their way" is the only way.

A decade is any ten years you mean it to be. 1960-1969, 1961-1970 or even 1966-1975. Those are all decades.

Similarly, one can mean 1000-1999 with a millennium if that's what one means. Or 1563-2462. That's a millennium too.

After all, if somebody lived for a century, that doesn't mean they have to have been born in 1901 and died in 2000. A person who was born in 1955 and died in 2054 lived a century too.

Microsoft's Flight Simulator 2004 was titled "A Century of Flight", from 1904 to 2004. Note that it was *not* the version of Flight Simulator released in 2000 or 2001 that was "A Century", but the one in *2004*.


It can't get any worse, can it? Yes it can.


TODD TAMANEND CLARK: The Eurocentric date system is based on the supposed year of birth of Jesus (Yehoshua/Joshua) The Christ, but since Jesus is merely an imaginary spiritual archetype and not a human being with an actual biological birth, the whole system is null and void.

soulfreq: There are a few billion people on the planet who disagree with this opinion!

Marshall Crist: It's probably more like only hundreds of millions. Thus, they could be mistaken.


Can't argue with that logic.

Right around here the moderator finally wakes up and closes the thread. It's a shame--after eight pages of this I never did find out whether Yehoshua's non-biological birth happened in the 15-cent era or when Microsoft Flight Simulator came out.


(Post a new comment)


(Anonymous)
2008-02-21 08:31 am UTC (link)
I never did find out whether Yehoshua's non-biological birth happened in the 15-cent era or when Microsoft Flight Simulator came out.

*laughs hysterically*

*butt falls off*


~Assless mouse

(Reply to this)


[info]cmdr_zoom
2008-02-21 08:58 am UTC (link)
To me, the Silver Age is a lot like porn: I know it when I see it.

(Reply to this)


[info]tangentialone
2008-02-21 09:21 am UTC (link)
...So there are honestly people (or at least... one person...) who considers the year 1970 to be the last year of the sixties?

Personally, I just feel sorry for those sad sacks who didn't go back and account for the calendar changes so that they could be celebrating the new millenium exactly two thousand years after Jesus being born. Ha! FOOLS.

Like the millenium thing isn't just about all the numbers changing, anyway. :B Unless Jesus was supposed to have been born on New Year's Day.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rosehiptea
2008-02-21 10:11 am UTC (link)
Like the millenium thing isn't just about all the numbers changing, anyway.

Seriously. I found it about as meaningful as my car's odometer turning over. Which is why I really don't get why this guy cares so much. Or at all, really.


(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]tangentialone, 2008-02-21 10:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tangentialone, 2008-02-21 10:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rosehiptea, 2008-02-21 10:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tangentialone, 2008-02-21 10:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]capsulekei, 2008-02-21 12:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eso_si_que, 2008-02-22 06:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tangentialone, 2008-02-22 06:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]brown_betty, 2008-02-21 07:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tehrin, 2008-02-21 09:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rosehiptea, 2008-02-21 10:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tehrin, 2008-02-22 05:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]smashingstars, 2008-02-22 12:35 am UTC

[info]athersgeo
2008-02-21 10:13 am UTC (link)
The Open University has a text book which talks, about the "long 60s", which has the 1960s running from 1954 to 1972*.

Mind you, this is the same text book which features the line "if the 1960s hadn't happened, we wouldn't need to explain them, or if they happened differently, we would need to find a different explanation for them". No shit.

*sigh*


*To be fair, the reasoning for this was that all the various social changes and political movements associated with the 60s didn't all neatly happen between January 1st 1960 and December 31st 1969, so it's not quite so batshit as it first seems.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]tangentialone, 2008-02-21 10:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]athersgeo, 2008-02-21 10:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tangentialone, 2008-02-21 10:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]athersgeo, 2008-02-21 11:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]qem_chibati, 2008-02-21 12:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]inseiko, 2008-02-21 04:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]puipui, 2008-02-21 05:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ms_treesap, 2008-02-21 06:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]puipui, 2008-02-21 07:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jellibean, 2008-02-22 02:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]puipui, 2008-02-22 02:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rosehiptea, 2008-02-21 10:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]athersgeo, 2008-02-21 10:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rosehiptea, 2008-02-21 10:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]athersgeo, 2008-02-21 10:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_pi, 2008-02-21 02:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rosehiptea, 2008-02-21 05:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]zing_och, 2008-02-21 08:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eso_si_que, 2008-02-22 06:27 am UTC
(no subject) - tree, 2008-02-22 03:50 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-22 08:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-21 06:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]panthea, 2008-02-23 02:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]the_mouse, 2008-02-21 09:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]khym_chanur, 2008-02-22 03:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lukita, 2008-02-22 05:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]panthea, 2008-02-23 02:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dorothy1901, 2008-02-21 02:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lingvo, 2008-02-21 04:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]youngcurmudgeon, 2008-02-21 07:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mister_terrific, 2008-02-21 10:33 pm UTC

[info]eilan
2008-02-21 09:45 am UTC (link)
A decade is ten years, there was no year zero, image so the first decade ever was the years one through ten.

I am now imagining Jesus telling his buddies how he was a true child of the '00's. And how much the 20s suck in comparison.

(Reply to this)


[info]kaesa
2008-02-21 10:01 am UTC (link)
Similarly, one can mean 1000-1999 with a millennium if that's what one means. Or 1563-2462. That's a millennium too.

That's as many as ten centuries. And that's terrible.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]dragonfangirl, 2008-02-21 10:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kaesa, 2008-02-21 10:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady7jane, 2008-02-21 04:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dark_puck, 2008-02-21 05:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady7jane, 2008-02-21 05:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kaesa, 2008-02-21 06:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eso_si_que, 2008-02-22 06:32 am UTC

[info]dragonfangirl
2008-02-21 10:12 am UTC (link)

Marshall Crist: It's probably more like only hundreds of millions. Thus, they could be mistaken.


Yes, the generations of work spent by the cream of the intellectual crop of Europe in putting together the modern calendar as it stands is nothing more than a trivial mistake...

What can I say? They didn't get cable in the Middle Ages.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]tangentialone, 2008-02-21 10:22 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-21 10:28 am UTC
:D - [info]jellibean, 2008-02-21 08:18 pm UTC
Re: :D - [info]tangentialone, 2008-02-21 09:00 pm UTC
Re: :D - (Anonymous), 2008-02-22 06:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kuromitsu, 2008-02-21 10:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mmanurere, 2008-02-21 11:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]castellated, 2008-02-21 04:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]solesakuma, 2008-02-21 05:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eso_si_que, 2008-02-22 06:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dragonfangirl, 2008-02-21 11:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]qem_chibati, 2008-02-21 11:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]palabradot, 2008-02-21 02:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tofuknight, 2008-02-23 02:37 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-21 04:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - dracothelizard, 2008-02-21 05:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-21 05:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]heddychaa, 2008-02-21 08:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-21 09:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kijikun, 2008-02-22 07:22 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-22 09:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]harrylovesron, 2008-02-21 07:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]brown_betty, 2008-02-21 07:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]missdaisy, 2008-02-22 12:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jellibean, 2008-02-22 02:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]stromatolite, 2008-02-22 09:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eso_si_que, 2008-02-22 06:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mrbimble, 2008-02-22 08:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cmdr_zoom, 2008-02-22 08:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]risha, 2008-02-22 03:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]seca, 2008-02-21 06:45 pm UTC

[info]hoopa
2008-02-21 12:17 pm UTC (link)
Someone call the president of Earth, the internet nerds have cracked it!

(Reply to this)


[info]schmoo999
2008-02-21 02:14 pm UTC (link)
So that whole Jesus thing? During the Iron age of comics?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]evanwaters, 2008-02-21 11:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bienegold, 2008-02-22 12:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]spawn_of_kong, 2008-02-22 12:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sparkysrevenge, 2008-02-22 03:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]papervolcano, 2008-02-22 10:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]amand_r, 2008-02-22 12:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]schmoo999, 2008-02-22 01:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]luthe, 2008-02-22 07:19 am UTC

[info]coffee_mug
2008-02-21 02:40 pm UTC (link)
The Eurocentric date system is based on the supposed year of birth of Jesus (Yehoshua/Joshua) The Christ, but since Jesus is merely an imaginary spiritual archetype and not a human being with an actual biological birth, the whole system is null and void.
Is he for real?

"Yehoshua Christ" is my new favourite exclamation from now on.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]dragonfangirl, 2008-02-21 03:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-21 06:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-21 09:01 pm UTC
Prepare to Wank - [info]tofuknight, 2008-02-23 02:42 am UTC
Re: Prepare to Wank - [info]coffee_mug, 2008-02-24 06:20 pm UTC
Re: Prepare to Wank - [info]tofuknight, 2008-02-25 10:42 pm UTC

[info]vzg
2008-02-21 02:55 pm UTC (link)
"It was as if the sixties ended the day we sold it... December 31, 1969."

And that's all I have to contribute!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]ms_treesap, 2008-02-21 07:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vzg, 2008-02-21 09:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]antigone, 2008-02-22 12:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tiasian, 2008-02-22 06:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evanwaters, 2008-02-22 07:19 am UTC

[info]glossing2
2008-02-21 03:14 pm UTC (link)
Back early in the century they KNEW the century started with Jan. 1, 1901 and that decades ended with Dec. 31, whatever00.
But they also didn't have the funny books! Coincidence?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]dark_puck, 2008-02-21 05:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kittikattie, 2008-02-22 07:40 am UTC

[info]llama_treats
2008-02-21 04:02 pm UTC (link)
I prefer to group my eras in terms of which Star Trek was on.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]athersgeo, 2008-02-21 04:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]llama_treats, 2008-02-21 04:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]athersgeo, 2008-02-21 04:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-21 04:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]llama_treats, 2008-02-21 04:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ereshkigal, 2008-02-22 03:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]llama_treats, 2008-02-22 05:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ereshkigal, 2008-02-22 05:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]llama_treats, 2008-02-22 05:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]athersgeo, 2008-02-21 04:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rosehiptea, 2008-02-21 06:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]athersgeo, 2008-02-21 07:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rosehiptea, 2008-02-21 10:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]smashingstars, 2008-02-22 12:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]puipui, 2008-02-22 02:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cmdr_zoom, 2008-02-22 08:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rosehiptea, 2008-02-22 06:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]andi_chan, 2008-02-24 11:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]athersgeo, 2008-02-24 05:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-21 08:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vito_excalibur, 2008-02-21 06:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]llama_treats, 2008-02-21 06:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]seca, 2008-02-21 06:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]florence_craye, 2008-02-22 12:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]vito_excalibur, 2008-02-25 08:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dragonfangirl, 2008-02-22 11:12 am UTC

[info]castellated
2008-02-21 04:17 pm UTC (link)
The funniest thing is how the RRR keeps insisting "most people" agree with him when I'm willing to be most people are going "WTF? The 60s consist of the years starting with 196, duh." I think "most people" must be the voices in his head.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]rosehiptea, 2008-02-22 12:31 am UTC

[info]isntitironic
2008-02-21 05:45 pm UTC (link)
This reminds me of an argument some friends and I had over how to define 'the Middle Ages'. We managed, tongues firmly in cheeks, to conclude that the Middle Ages began on January 18, 395, and ended on October 30th, 1517.

Only that was geeky and awesome instead of wanky and embarrassing.

(Reply to this)


[info]seca
2008-02-21 06:50 pm UTC (link)
Oh fanboys and their knack of finding new reasons to get their knickers in a bunch. ♥

(Reply to this)


[info]silentspeaker
2008-02-21 07:08 pm UTC (link)
I thought Marshall Crist's comment ("nah, only hundreds of millions") was funny. In fact I thought it was meant to be funny, so I don't get why people are snarling at him about the relative intellectual contribution of the Middle Ages.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-21 11:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-21 11:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]smashingstars, 2008-02-22 12:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]eldritch, 2008-02-22 01:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]puipui, 2008-02-22 02:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]brennalarose, 2008-02-22 03:38 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-22 08:14 pm UTC

[info]shakeandbake
2008-02-21 08:20 pm UTC (link)
RRR's post, complete with every "I'm angry/frustrated!" emoticon available on the board, to get the full effect of his rage. He is BEATING HIS HEAD AGAINST A WALL with outrage!

REVIVETHEREDRAVEN SMA--

*checks quickly to make sure The Incredible Hulk features in the Silver Age*

Whew, okay so REVIVETHEREDRAVEN SMASH!

(Reply to this)


[info]jellibean
2008-02-21 08:22 pm UTC (link)
Wow. :O! I don't get to see people use emoticons in the MIDDLE of sentences too often. Must be my :D lucky day! ;)

I always hated/never really got the "OMG ZEROES DON'T COUNT!" argument. WTF does it really matter, anyway?

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2008-02-21 08:58 pm UTC (link)
Year Zero? You mean like the most recent NIN album?

No?

*slinks back into the shadows to read the only comic book she currently owns*

--tyro, who has got to get the second volume of Sandman

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2008-02-21 11:18 pm UTC (link)
Lol, wait. Did they just turn an argument about the date into a "damn kids" rant? That's bloody impressive. I like the the news anchors were lumped in. Those goddamn news anchors don't know what's good for them.

- jeanquirieplus

(Reply to this)


[info]sprungtodrown
2008-02-22 09:13 am UTC (link)
The year 0, year 1 arguments always make me think of people confusing what A.D. and B.C. stand for.

I really hope they get into an argument over B.C. meaning "before Christ" and A.D. meaning "after death" and thus Jesus living in the astral plane in an alternate-time-dimension.



(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]dragonfangirl, 2008-02-22 11:13 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-22 09:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sprungtodrown, 2008-02-23 07:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dragonfangirl, 2008-02-24 05:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sprungtodrown, 2008-02-24 10:04 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-23 06:17 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-02-23 07:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]isntitironic, 2008-02-23 05:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aristaea, 2008-02-25 01:35 am UTC

[info]gusty
2008-02-22 02:40 pm UTC (link)
They think the century ends with 1999, mainly because of the influence of brain dead TV newsmen and a decline in the public schools...

There's a 'darn whippersnappers' missing somewhere in there along with the sound of a cane clacking unhappily on linoleum.

(Reply to this)


[info]acrasie
2008-02-26 01:28 am UTC (link)
I thought by year zero, you meant all those number zero comics they keep pushing on comic readers.

(Reply to this)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map